Browse Source

the ntp engine can run with "stdio inet proc". For many reasons,

including fork/exec cost, it would be better if constraints were
forked from the master process, which would then tell the ntp
engine.  That would increase accuracy and security.
Lots of conversations with reyk and bcook
OPENBSD_5_9
deraadt 8 years ago
parent
commit
b8ed49dca0
1 changed files with 16 additions and 1 deletions
  1. +16
    -1
      src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntp.c

+ 16
- 1
src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntp.c View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
/* $OpenBSD: ntp.c,v 1.135 2015/08/14 02:00:18 millert Exp $ */
/* $OpenBSD: ntp.c,v 1.136 2015/10/09 03:54:53 deraadt Exp $ */
/*
* Copyright (c) 2003, 2004 Henning Brauer <henning@openbsd.org>
@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
#include <string.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <err.h>
#include <tls.h>
#include "ntpd.h"
@ -165,6 +166,20 @@ ntp_main(int pipe_prnt[2], int fd_ctl, struct ntpd_conf *nconf,
endservent();
/*
* XXX
* Unfortunately, the "contraint" processes are forked
* below the "ntp engine". Hence the ntp engine needs
* to be able to fork -> "proc", and the "constraint"
* process will want to open sockets -> "inet".
*
* For many reasons, including fork/exec cost, it would
* be better if constraints were forked from the master
* process, which would then tell the ntp engine.
*/
if (pledge("stdio inet proc", NULL) == -1)
err(1, "pledge");
signal(SIGTERM, ntp_sighdlr);
signal(SIGINT, ntp_sighdlr);
signal(SIGINFO, ntp_sighdlr);


Loading…
Cancel
Save